Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj Singh @ Lalua Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 2 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2287 of 2008
BETWEEN:-
MANOJ SINGH @ LALUA SINGH S/O BHUKHAN SINGH
THAKUR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O VILL. DADUWAR,
P.S. KOTHI, DISTRICT SATNA. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI NARENDRA LODHI -ADVOCATE AS AMICUS
CURIAE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE PS
SC/ST SATNA DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI MANISH MUKHARIYA - PANEL LAWYER)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Satna
in Special Case No.23/2006 whereby the appellant has been convicted under
Sections 354 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months RI and Section 3(1)
(11) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to undergo 6
months RI and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to further undergo two month
RI.
2. As none appeared on behalf of the appellant, Shri Narendra Lodhi,
Advocate who is present in the Court, has been requested to assist the Court on
behalf of the appellant as amicus curiae.
3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal in brief are that on
02.11.2005 when prosecutrix was alone at her house, then appellant came there
and insulted the prosecutrix and used criminal force with intention to outrage
her modesty. On 11.11.2005, prosecutrix has lodged FIR at Police Station-
AJK Satna District-Satna, thereupon the case of offence under Sections 323,
354, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(11) of SC/ST Act was registered against the
appellant and after investigation, the challan is filed against the accused under
the said offence. During the trial, the prosecution has examined the prosecutrix
(PW-1), Pappu (PW-2), Gora (PW-3), Chunni Lal (PW-4), Dr. S.K. Jain (PW-
5), R.B. Sharma (PW-6), Rajendra Prasad(PW-7), Narendra Singh (PW-8),
Shyamlal (PW-9), S.K. Barman (PW-10). While accused/appellant and
Bhagwat Prasad (DW-1) were examined as defence witness.
4. Thereafter, learned trial Court after considering the evidence on record by
impugned judgment convicted and sentence the appellant as mentioned in para 1
above. Against this, appellant has preferred appeal.
5. It is submitted by the learned amicus curiae for the appellant that the
incident was of year 2005 and since then the accused is facing mental agony.
Appellant has no criminal antecedent, he is first offender. After getting the bail,
he never misused the liberty. There was no mens rea behind the incident so a
liberal view on the point of sentence under Sections 354 of IPC be taken by the
Court, so he prayed that the sentence be reduced to period already undergone
by him and so far as the offence of under Section 3(1)(11) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned, that is not proved in absence of
caste certificate issued by appropriate authority.
6. Per contra, Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State submitted that
learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and has
rightly convicted and sentenced appellant but he did not dispute that the caste
certificate was issued by the Sarpanch who is not authorized under the Special
Act to issue the caste certificate.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and careful perusal of the
record, it reveals that the the caste certificate of prosecutrix (PW-1) is exhibited
as P/5 but that certificate is issued by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat,
Amiliya who is not authorized to issue such certificate. No certificate by
authorized officer i.e. Tehsildar or Sub Divisional Officer has been filed and
proved on behalf of the prosecution. Rajendra Prasad (PW-7) examined on
behalf of the prosecution and who has deposed that he has issued caste
certificate (Ex. P/5). However, he is not authorized to issue such certificate,
therefore, this certificate Ex. P/5 does not inspire the confidence of the Court.
The caste of the complainant is not proved so also that she belongs to the
community of scheduled caste. Moreover, as contended by the learned counsel
for the appellant that as per the story of prosecution, there is sexual harassment
by the accused/appellant but the intention is not proved of the accused that he
has committed that offence on the basis of the caste of the complainant.
Therefore the offence under Section 3(1)(11) of SC/ST Ac doe not constituted
this case.
8. In Criminal Appeal No. 406/1998 (Shankarlal Vs. State of MP)
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 04.07.2013 held that it is
necessary to prove the said offence that the accused has insulted the
complainant with intent to humiliate him/her on the ground of complainant being
a member of scheduled caste.
9. In Chalaniya Dheemar Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, ILR 2012 MP
189 and Pillu Alias Pyarelal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, ILR 2012 MP
1309, it has been specifically held by coordinate Bench of this Court that if
caste of victim is not proved by cogent and reliable document issued by the
competent authority, then mere oral deposition of witness would not be
sufficient to prove the caste certificate.
10. In the above factual backdrop when the prosecution failed to prove the
offence under Section 3(1)(11) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, thus,
conviction and sentence of appellant under Section 3(1)(11) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act is hereby set aside. Fine amount imposed under
this section if deposited by the appellant, be returned to him.
11. So far as the conviction under section 354 of IPC is concerned in view
of statement of prosecutrix (PW-1) and supporting statement of Pappu (Pw-2),
Gora (PW-3) , Chunni Lal (PW-4), it is estblished that at the time of offence
accused used criminal force to outrage the modesty of prosecutrix and
thereby committed an offence under Section 354 of IPC. The testiony of
prosecutrix is further supported by FIR and medical evidence which is
established from the police witnesses and statement of Dr. S.K. Jain (PW-5).
Therefore, offence under Section 354 of IPC against the appellant/accused is
found proved beyond reasonable doubt.
12. As far as the the sentence in aforesaid offence is concerned, it is
apparent from the perusal of the record that the incident took place in the year
2005, since then the accused is facing mental agony. The appellant remained in
custody for 2 day. He was of 28 years old at the time of incident. The
prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellant on
record and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him under the bail. There is
no minimum sentence prescribed under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code at
that time, I deem it proper to reduce the jail sentence of the appellant to the
extent of the period which he has already undergone.
13. Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant is acquitted
from the charges under Section 3(1)(11) of SC/ST Act and sentence with
regard to the offence under Section 354 is reduced to the period already
undergone by him and the sentence of fine amount is maintained. The appellant
is on bail. Bail bonds and personal bonds of the appellant are hereby
discharged.
14. The record of the learned trial Court along with the copy of the judgment
be sent back forthwith to the concerned trial Court for compliance and
necessary action.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
DigitallyL.R.
signed by LALIT
SINGH RANA
Date: 2024.02.13
18:47:52 +05'30'
